It’s A Trap!

Here is a shit test I have no idea how to answer: when a woman makes a self-deprecating remark about her own looks. This happened to me twice in very recent past, and I just smiled and said nothing, but there probably is a better response.

Those weren’t young hotties you need to nuclear-neg, nor ugly women you kind of feel sorry for. Both were very attractive (for their age), older than me.

Not trying to game them or anything, just wanting to keep good relations (work, extended social life) and gina-tingle is how you keep good relations with women. Got a good response?

Ah, the classic passive-aggressive self-deprecation shit test. Be careful, men, this is an advanced form of female game that is subtle enough to trip up even the most battle-worn players. Answer this one wrong and you might be staring down the barrel of a pouty face for weeks to come.

Broadly speaking, there are five more or less effective ways to answer the self-deprecation shit test (SDST):

Validate her. “No, you don’t have crows’ feet. You have great skin. You’re gorgeous.”

Playfully invalidate her. “Oh yeah, your crows’ feet are HUGE. Like, you have the grand canyon of crows’ feet. A murder of crows has set up shop on your face, pooping and pecking all over you!”

The five responses above all have their pros and cons, but some are more pro than con. The validation tactic of number one should be avoided with any woman you have been dating/banging/betrothed to for less than six months. Validation is the easy peasy lemon squeezy cop-out for uncreative betas with fear in their hearts. Remember that the primary purpose of the female shit test is to suss out beta fear of loss. A woman wants to know that if she pushes too far, you would be willing to dump her in 30 seconds no looking back, with or without the heat coming around the corner. Sure, she may not want to be dumped, but she tingles when the threat of a dumping is real. So if you validate a woman her poofy head hamster will rationalize that you are merely placating her to avoid losing out on her golden pussy (or her social approval). This is seriously the way women think. I know, it’s crazy, but you work with what’s put before you. The only scenario in which I would counsel validation as an effective response to the SDST is when the man has established his alpha bonafides with the woman, and they have been together for longer than six months. It is not unusual for a longtime wife, let’s say, to begin harboring doubts about her continued attractiveness to her husband, especially if said husband has recently gotten a promotion and a new fresh-faced secretary to go along with it. In such cases, the SDST is a genuine cry for confidence-boosting flattery. Give it to her, and then followup with a playful buttsmack and a cocky “And let’s keep your ass that way”.

Option two, the playful invalidation, is perfect for women in their prime. The most sexually valuable women (age: 15 – 25, BMI 17 – 23) will toss out SDSTs for one reason only — to test your alpha mettle. They crave the non-standard response, and will light up if you exaggeratedly agree with them. A couple of caveats: One, don’t try this if you haven’t yet mastered the art of spite-free teasing. I’ve seen too many hard-up men look to teasing banter as the holy grail of game, only to fumble during the execution as their years of bitterness bubble to the surface, polluting their body language and subtext with the stink of beta. Two, don’t playfully invalidate a girl who is as bad as, or worse than, her self-deprecating remarks. If a fat chick says “I’m too fat”, then a teasing “Oh yeah, you’re HUGE like well-fed walrus” will crush her soul, no matter how obvious your eyeroll. Unless your intention is to crush her soul. Not that I would condone such a thing. *angel halo*

Option three, tangential agreement, is the courtier’s sophisticated form of withering contempt. Sometimes the deepest cuts are made with the blade sheathed. Just a glint of the ivory handle will deliver the message. If you want to hurt a woman playing these SDST games, this is the way to go. I wouldn’t advise option three if you are trying to get in her pants, unless you suspect she is a masochistic chick who craves the loving ministrations of a straight up asshole. See: Any lawyer chick.

Option four, ignoring her, is a safe bet when you are stuck for words or caught off guard. It won’t wow her, but more importantly it won’t make you sound beta. For most men, that would be an accomplishment. Remember, too, that abruptly changing the subject is a perfectly reasonable ploy to shake off the rattle of an SDST. Abrupt subject changes may strike the male ear as inherently illogical and nefarious, but the female ear hears the world differently. An abrupt subject change is just an excuse for more YAY DRAMA. In fact, it is the prerogative of the alpha male to change subjects. Who else is gonna do it?

Option five, the reframe, is, as most of you have guessed, my personal favorite. Not only does it expertly shake off an SDST bomb, but it puts her on the defensive and let’s her know you don’t approve of such typical female game-playing. A woman on the defensive, cowering before a stronger and more willful man, is a woman crouched in tingle mode, ready to give birth to a womb-shaking orgasm. Which brings me to…

Maxim #83: Awareness of a woman’s games is a precision-guided weapon in a man’s arsenal of seduction. Slyly revealing your knowledge of a woman’s obstructive game tactics is like catnip to her pussy.

Maxim #83 is so effective simply because the great majority of men are ignorant of women’s game-playing. Insinuating to a woman playing such games that you know the score will help you stand out from the crowd of sauseeege. Having the balls to call out a woman on her games instead of lamenting about it to buddies during the post-pickup debriefing will earn you the admiration of feminists and normal, healthy women alike.

Like this:

Related

145 Responses

If you have no interest in sleeping with her, denying that she has crow’s feet, has gained weight, etc, no matter how obvious, will win you lots of goodwill. If you want to sleep with her respond with “well i’d still bang you.”

“Having the balls to call out a woman on her games instead of lamenting about it to buddies during the post-pickup debriefing will earn you the admiration of feminists and normal, healthy women alike.”

This can go both ways, actually. At least, it has for me. When women I like identify what I am up to or deliver some penetrating insight into my pyschology, I like them even more. I like a bit of competition sometimes, some adversarial spunk, because smart girls are more interesting over the long term.

Based on the scenario PA described (work situation and not women he’s looking to bang,) I’d go validation all the way.

If these women are older, even if they’re just receptionists or something, then there’s a lot to be gained by letting them think the cute young guy thinks they’re still attractive.

I used this technique to great advantage in my younger days. I’d flirt just enough to let them think “Maybe one day, if we’re both drunk at a party . . . ” and all of a sudden, I’m getting the plum jobs (if they have power) or getting meetings with their bosses (it they’re receptionists) that no one else can get.

And since these aren’t young hotties, then validation isn’t going to land you in Beta Jail, because they’re sincerely just looking for someone to make them feel better about themselves.

is bill simmons the new copy editor around these parts? (just kidding; he is a beta doosh) but throw in maybe a scarface reference and compare each of the five options to a beatles song, and there you go.

btw, i have a framed 8×11 of neil mccauley, drawing his gun, hanging in my hallway.

Some catch all answers for aquaintances you want to tingle but don’t want to fuck:

“Don’t ask me, look in the mirror.” Can be said with irritation, if she has made a habit of asking you about her appearance.

“Don’t ask me questions like that”

“Use a scale”

Stare at her blankly for a bit, long enough to let her know you are staring at her in answer to her question (deliberate irritated if still laughing at her silence). Then anything; “Sorry, I got distracted – what were you talking about?”

Tell her once, and only once, exactly and precisely the unvarnished truth, to the point of pain. Any follow up or repeat questions refer to variations 1-3 above.

[D]on’t try this if you haven’t yet mastered the art of spite-free teasing. I’ve seen too many hard-up men look to teasing banter as the holy grail of game, only to fumble during the execution as their years of bitterness bubble to the surface, polluting their body language and subtext with the stink of beta.

Okay, this is an issue I’ve been mulling over. The Game literature I’ve moved through so far has been great at explaining the explicit, technical aspects of alpha versus beta behavior. But subtextual beta bitterness is a reality, too, that can make the whole thing go less smoothly.

If I ask for advice about this I’m guessing I already know parts of the response. Recognition of the problem makes it easier to deal with. Relaxing, and getting laid more, takes the edge off. Anything else? Anything more procedural? Did someone, I dunno, taking an acting class or something dumb like that, that helped them achieve a more free and easy style of banter, sans spite?

But for every curt social interaction, you have to follow up LATER or EARLIER but not immediatly after with a genuine flirt. Push pull.

It’s far better to push hard and pull hard than it is to be careful about not pushing. The main concern is the balance. It’s not the battles that much matter – it’s the war. You can get way with bloody murder, if you pull hard enough to balance it.

Posts like these make this blog addicting. File under ‘funny as shit, true as fuck, and wish I would’ve known it 20 years ago’.

“I’ve seen too many hard-up men look to teasing banter as the holy grail of game, only to fumble during the execution as their years of bitterness bubble to the surface, polluting their body language and subtext with the stink of beta.”

Cocky/Playful is a tough approach to get smooth, especially if you are having fun turning the tables after years (decades?) of suffering shit tests without knowing how to pass them. Inner game is the only way here.

Pointing at ‘natural game’ as a whole solution is a dangerous business. That sort of internalization of calculated overconfidence is meant to be the result of breaking confidence-devastating thought patterns along with with the realization that most women get excited when you cheat at their constant mind games.

The plight of the foolish man, which built his house upon the sand and overlooked inner game, is easy to easy. But to be a wise man, which built his house upon a rock, he must actually build upon the rock, where many believe the rock of ‘natural game’ alone is enough.

Active, cerebral game is the difference between hiding under the rock and building a radiant, magnetic palace atop it. But you do, first, need the rock.

Youve introduced a new element of nuance and sophistication into your previously crude understanding of what it means to be masculine – at least as youve been presenting it on this site – that is all to the good.

You even address the issue of the difference between bitter, spiteful teasing – which conveys weakness – and genuinely playful and infdifferent teasing, which comes from a place of strength.

To read your site in the past one would come away convinced that manliness entails only over the top exhibitions of supposed alphaness without any understanding that too much alpha can come off as weak. It seemed you thought no amunt of anger or lashing out was weak, which is of course very false.

In my view, the failure to make clear that trying too hard to be alpha and impress others with your alphaness, and allowing too great an anger and aggressiveness to leak out, actually comes off as weakness is a major failure on the part of many Game purveyors and probably leads too many men into avoidable pitfalls.

Macho in any form is not strong. Trying too hard to be Alpha is weak. Too much anger and aggressiveness is weak. We need more clarity on this issue.

…and Joey Giraud is right. if one truly adores women, he can get away with a surprising amount of shit. women can smell misogynists, and almost all are attracted, to varying degrees; but the difference in the quality of the women who overlook the hating player is obvious.

if you hate women, you might screw alot of hotties, but you’ll get a hardon from looking at the woman of an alpha who actually adores her.

“if you hate women, you might screw alot of hotties, but you’ll get a hardon from looking at the woman of an alpha who actually adores her.”

Here’s a question: how do you get away from it? (The hate?) I’ve got 15 years of betatude I’ve needed to work out of my system. I tried to get into feminism, but that just had the opposite effect on me. Ironically, it was feminist critiques of the PUA community that got me into game.

Anyway, do you talk yourself into it, like a mantra? (I like women and all their illogic, i like women and all their illogic, i like women….)

Perhaps I’m being over charitable here, but are self-deprecating remarks by women necessarily always (conscious)shit tests? Is the genuine cry for confidence-boosting flattery explanation necessarily confined to the LTR situation?

I note the girls here are objectively attractive, but although I agree that most women, if asked to rate themselves on the 1-10 scale, tend to overrate (sometimes laughably so), rather than under-rate, this is not necessarily always the case, particularly towards the top end of the scale (there tends to be a lot of overrating bunched in the middle); even beautiful women can experience momentary crises of confidence on days when they feel they are slipping to a “9”; it’s not the number slipped to, it’s the principle of slippage & the foresight of the inevitable downward spiral.

One relevant question working on the assumption that no shit-testing woman (as opposed to a crier for help) ever willingly draws attention to her flaws, would be the nature of the self-deprecating remark, and in particular whether or not
(a) the characteristic referred to, although exaggerated, has some basis in fact; and
(b) would generally be considered unattractive.

A woman who asks whether an (objectively perceptible) pimple on her face is a boil is unlikely to be shit-testing. On the other hand it is a common strategy among females to draw attention to characteristics they are really rather proud of by describing them as flaws e.g. “do my breasts look too big?”

You don’t think this just gives validation, and and puts them in the comfort zone of having immediately increased their value to greater than yours?

Not really. Notice you’re not actually telling her that she’s not getting fat. It’s a compliment, a neg, and proposition all at the same time. You’re being both the womanizing jerk AND the nice guy. Simultaneous embodiment of both yin and the yang is master class.

Thank you for the millionth time. A cute but chubby girl ran a SDST on me this weekend. “I’m not getting in that hot tub until I lose a few pounds.” Through practice and reading this blog, I unconsciously ignored it. Then she said it again! Again I ignored it. The reframe would have been awesome. Next time!

What do you think of the “I’d fuck you” response discussed above? I like it.

How about this? Don’t reframe, but don’t assuage her either. I suppose this is in line with option #3… Appeal to the inner female narcissist by comparing her to someone else, perhaps a common acquaintance: “Hey, at least your nose doesn’t look like Suzie’s!”.

Now, I suppose it depends on what we’re dealing with. If it’s a virginal farm girl, you probably don’t need to be gaming her that hard. However, if it’s a ballbreaker lawyer shrew, especially a good looking one, have at it.

”””””””’Oh-my-goodness..Reading this now makes me wonder if I made a bad choice or not. Im 25 been married 3 years and been with him since, partically since I was 13 =/..He is all I know. I became a houswife at 20, thinking sooner or later I will start on my career but ended up having a kid at 14, and 3 more bck to bck at 21-22-24 yrs old. Now, I know I didnt settle because he is tall, atheltic, smart as hell!, and blue eyes just like the dream man I wanted..but the biggest flaw in the world he had, he loved his job more then me. So leaves me to now, I was home all day long with the kids, het got home 8ish ate dinner showered and watch a lil TV and to bed..That was 5 days a week. Weekends? Spend no one on one time with me. So I was very very lonely, no to mension I was a houswife with no career since he came home so late I couldnt go to school, another flaw…Well I ended up cheatin for the 1st time in my life and, I told him. I couldnt bare living a lie. After reading this, I wonder should I have just toughed it out till the kids became old enough to go to school and then start focusing on me, or found the love i was looking for though the other guy has none of my husband qualities but he showed me love I never experinced…Worth it? I still have no idea cuz now its either fight 4 my husband to forgive me, or grow up again and became the women I wanted to be all along?..Advice?””””””””””

”””””Riff Dog
Based on the scenario PA described (work situation and not women he’s looking to bang,) I’d go validation all the way.

If these women are older, even if they’re just receptionists or something, then there’s a lot to be gained by letting them think the cute young guy thinks they’re still attractive.

I used this technique to great advantage in my younger days. I’d flirt just enough to let them think “Maybe one day, if we’re both drunk at a party . . . ” and all of a sudden, I’m getting the plum jobs (if they have power) or getting meetings with their bosses (it they’re receptionists) that no one else can get.

And since these aren’t young hotties, then validation isn’t going to land you in Beta Jail, because they’re sincerely just looking for someone to make them feel better about themselves.””””””’

Yea if you game at work it makes it easier but that is why bitches should be seperate from men at work because it is a distraction and a chick always has to have someone and they get them at work. So yea it is just another equal piece of bs he he he

i’ve never had to get away from it because i’ve never been in it. i’ve never had a really bad experience. (almost) every relationship i’ve had has left me with good memories.

“I’ve got 15 years of betatude I’ve needed to work out of my system”

i don’t know if i can offer advice, but i can explain things from my experience.

two points: first, never look up to her. if you put her on a pedestal, she’ll look down on you. a woman wants to look up to a man. her nature is unable to see you as an equal. there’s a blind spot in her vision. she will either look up to you or down on you. it doesn’t matter if she’s a lawyer or a housewife, just make sure she never looks down on you. if it doesn’t come naturally, you’ve GOT to figure out how to achieve this.

confidence on your part and a sense from her that you want, but don’t need her, is a good start. all the details radiate from this foundation.

second, never look down on her. if you look down on your woman, and if she’s drawn to men who look down on her, you both have big problems.

just admire her. if you’re the right guy, that’s all she really wants. and if you “get it”, you won’t hate women anymore.

“Here’s a question: how do you get away from it? (The hate?) I’ve got 15 years of betatude I’ve needed to work out of my system. I tried to get into feminism, but that just had the opposite effect on me. Ironically, it was feminist critiques of the PUA community that got me into game.”

I think basically understanding that what’s good for you is what, deep down, women want from you. They want a man, and you want to be a man. The problem is yours, not theirs, and is not insurmountable. Your life contains the answer to whatever issue you have — doing one thing exacerbates it, doing another resolves it.

Classic deployment of Option Three in the political sphere: Obama’s “You’re likeable enough, Hillary,” which he unloaded in response to her self-deprecation in an NH primary debate. Whatever you think of the guy as President, that was admirably savage.

There is one more way to answer this test. I’m surprised no one got this.

Her: self-deprecating remark about her own looks.

You: (with a straight face) I can’t tell. I’d have to see you naked to evaluate everything in context.

This usually gets a laugh, plus inserts sex playfully in the conversation. After this, let it drop. Odds are she’ll bring it up again, and her entire “fishing for compliments” routine was a pretext to this. I tried it way back in the day and it worked. I was too afraid to follow through, of course, but nice to know the door did open.

You could try making friends with one who doesn’t suck. Like, real friends: not with you spanking the monkey fantasizing about her like a creepy twat. I got sisters, so maybe this comes more naturally to me than to others who don’t. Knowing human nature might make you a bit of a misanthrope, but you don’t have to be a hater.

“Classic deployment of Option Three in the political sphere: Obama’s “You’re likeable enough, Hillary,” which he unloaded in response to her self-deprecation in an NH primary debate.”

If Obama stuck to negging exclusively and didn’t display his passive aggressive snideness (middle finger scratching, “lipstick on a pig” type comments) my estimation of his character would rise significantly. Otherwise he’s still a punk, game tactics or not.

Why? Who cares! If I ain’t fuckin ‘em, I surely ain’t hangin’ around with them….

Why does a cat bat around a mouse? Playful habit. To keep the wits sharp. Because its a fun little challenge.

My girls have often asked me “why do you make me love you?”, and my only answers have been “it’s what I do”. Or, “habit”, “it’s my calling, I can’t help it”.

I’m not fond of the shorthand term “game”. It’s too shorthand. Being seductive and social is a charismatic way of being, and you do it because you like making people enjoy themselves and you enjoy the whole process. It makes life fun. It’s anti-boredom.

So what’s the ruling if you simply tell her that you don’t care without kissing her ass? Is that the equivalent of option 4, where you ignore her?

Ouch! That’s REALLY bugging out and not playing the game. Telling her you don’t care is telling her you could never love her. That from your point of view she’s unloveable – in a category you can’t think of sexually.

That’s different from saying “don’t ask me questions like that”, which leaves mystery and sets you up as the one in command.

Not caring is the ultimate buzz kill. Sure, she’ll stop asking you, but then she’ll stop caring about you, and drop out of your life. If that’s your aim, stay home.

Here’s a question: how do you get away from it? (The hate?) I’ve got 15 years of betatude I’ve needed to work out of my system. I tried to get into feminism, but that just had the opposite effect on me. Ironically, it was feminist critiques of the PUA community that got me into game.

Simple. Simply accept that many women today are bad people. So they reject you. Is that bad? Who cares?

Apathy towards the random nasty behavior of nasty people is the appropriate action. So they are being nasty? Isn’t that surprising. That’s kinda what nasty people do.

Just walk away without a word if you want to. You don’t owe them anything.(Since they aren’t your friends this is factually true).

Apathy gets you to qualify, it removes needness, and will reduce anger. So pour it on. Remember, most of the people rejecting you, you wouldn’t like anyway.

Of course, a measure of respect and decency should be shown once you are convinced… and only once you are convinced, you are dealing with a decent person.

The Andy Garcia grade response to this sort of “Does this dress make me look fat”? is very simple.
Just lift up the silly dress, yank down the panties, bend her down, give it the cock-head, wait about 5 seconds for it to lube up, then ram it home and dump the load.
Pull out, slap her ass, go back to whatever is important.

How do you get rid of the hate? two ways ..one is difficult ..one is less so.. the hate is actually anger, frustration, sadness ..but these are normal emotions that are full to the brim in your body mind conciousness.. about a year of focused therapy ..not the talking blah blah blah kind .. could release it if you find a great outlet … is there a Fight Club near you..lol ..the second method is easier ..refuse to date American woman in general …pick a nice warm old fashioned country ..where women like being women… and go there ..try to stay away from the big city girls…(and Russia is not warm..dont let the great looking women fool you) and practice your game…imo most American women are so deeply screwed up (in general) its as if you are trying to have a relationship with the last 30 years of Television programing..

What is the proper response if you are out on a date with a girl who knows that she makes a lot less money than you and out of the blue she claims that she doesn’t care how much a person makes? Is this a shit test or is the woman trying to make the guy think she isn’t a gold digger?

“JERUSALEM — The women tattooed his name and portrait on their bodies and gave their children his name – Savior.

They spoon-fed the bearded, one-time healer as if he were royalty, brushed his shoulder-length white locks, sent him text messages when they were ovulating and slept with him at his bidding.

They turned over wages and welfare payments to him and lived in cramped, rundown Tel Aviv apartments with the children they bore him. According to police, he fathered some of his own daughters’ children.

The man, 60-year-old Goel Ratzon – whose first name is Hebrew for “Savior” – is now sitting in a Tel Aviv jail, suspected by police of enslaving a cult-like harem of at least 17 women and 37 children. Ratzon, who’s lived this way for two decades, denies any wrongdoing, his lawyer says.”

The Weekly Standard article is expansive, well-written and quite evenhanded in its treatment of the subjects covered in this blog that influence the culture at large.

Her terming of the current paradigm “The New Paleolithic” is questionable caricature of what’s happening because its not clear that the conditions in human prehistory were as similarly difficult for such Beta males as they are today.

Prior to agriculture (and the civilization built upon it), its unlikely that a single man’s lone ability to acquire resources and provide security would have been enough, despite his alpha stature, to monopolize the available women to the serious detriment of beta males. Stone Age women still utilized Beta men for these purposes even while coveting Alphas that they were more attracted to, but there was relative equilibrium within this small-tribe hunter-gatherer structure.

Group cohesion and cooperation being a necessity of primitive large-game hunting meant that natural Alpha males had a preferential position, rather than outright dominant one, to Beta males. The spoils of the hunt had to be shared along with the supply of fertile women. The man-market was flatter, and thus more stable.

Agriculture, and the advent of warfare as an exclusive means to acquire food and women irrevocably disrupted that stasis.

The right will get a reprieve from harsh scrutiny when it lays off the religion and their rejection of the difficult truths which undermine it.

True story, many conservatives will be very bothered by the admissions within Charlotte Allen’s WS piece.

If it isn’t her unwillingness to condemn the poonhounding cads, its her brief exposition on the evolutionary psychology underlying human behavior that will bother the hell out of such people.

One thing that radical gender feminists and reactionary paternalist conservatives have in common is a particular penchant for confusing observation for endorsement, and conflating explanation with justification (see: A Natural History of Rape debate circa 2000).

”””””Roger
Maybe the Weekly Standard article and its basically fair treatment will lead some of you all to lay off the right a little. The right isn’t perfect but they are much less our enemy than the left is.

In societies with a high degree of gender equality, where women have their own resources, they do not look for dominant men with resources as their genes supposedly make them do. Instead, they seek out men who are caring and able to bond with children, report psychologists Alice Eagly of Northwestern and Wendy Wood of Duke. In truth, what men and women look for most in a mate may simply be someone like themselves.

**************************

Beauty is a social rather than an evolutionary construct. Being beautiful has no relationship to fertility. A woman can have a face and figure like a barn door and still be a champion breeder. And while men do like good-looking women, the females don’t have to be very young. In one experiment, when men were shown pictures of plain women in their 20s and more attractive women in their 30s and 40s, the men chose the good-looking older women. However, for men, beauty is not the prime ingredient in a mate. A worldwide study found that for both men and women, “kind and understanding” were the most sought-after traits in a mate.

@Thursday- I just read the HuffPo retort. Writer didn’t even seem to understand the main points. And stuff like this-

Beauty is a social rather than an evolutionary construct

is hilarious and sad at the same time.

Charlotte Allen, despite being a Republican middle-aged lady, seems to grasp the community and worldview pretty well. And the sadness, and loss of the values of civilization, that comes along with an awareness of its tenets. Who knew the likes of her were lurking at this site? There’s stuff in the piece that suggests she has been a regular reader for a long time. If so – welcome, kindred spirit, and keep up the good work.

Hmm. Charlotte Allen, as her article hints, has views that aren’t so very different from my own, although if I had written such a piece I would have been less inclined to blame feminism as such for the current state of affairs. Today’s feminism is, for the most part, a consequence rather than a cause of the sexual revolution. Even the bete noir of so many posters here – no-fault divorce – couldn’t have been implemented without the support of “alpha” males – likely rich men, lacking in foresight, who wanted to be able to leave wives for younger women without paying too heavy a financial penalty for it, and convinced themselves that it would be good for women too. Or at least so I suspect.

“Even the bete noir of so many posters here – no-fault divorce – couldn’t have been implemented without the support of “alpha” males – likely rich men, lacking in foresight, who wanted to be able to leave wives for younger women without paying too heavy a financial penalty for it, and convinced themselves that it would be good for women too. Or at least so I suspect.”

You have a good point there IMO Alias Clio. We should attempt to find fault in divorce proceedings unless both parties cite “irreconcileable differences” and both agree to a no-fault divorce. In most any divorce, one side has been doing the other side wrong either emotionally, sexually, financially, etc. Its unfair for a man (or a woman) to have to pay money out the wazoo because their spouse has decided to start sleeping with someone else, has spent all the couple’s monies, or is constantly beating/berating/criticizing the other party until they are genuinely depressed. Somebody is usually to blame more than the other in a divorce if both parties went into the marriage in good faith.

Advocatus Diaboli has mentioned the need for parties to act in “good faith” in all sorts of venues. It used to be that people’s religious beliefs could vouchsafe for a reasonable expectation of “good faith” behaviors in all sorts of transactsions, but being that we are past that…………….there is no guarantee that anyone we deal with is playing us straight anymore.

Number 1 is best, especially if you go over the top with the validation, so she questions your sincerity, and thus her worthiness. It’s a great neg because you can’t get in trouble for ‘complementing’ her.

@clio- well, you should like the piece as well because you are directly quoted…! i suppose it wasn’t too hard for the author to track you down. She does seem to have a worldview and life interests that are similar to yours. So no surprise she picked you as the female commenter to quote. Not that that’s a bad thing at all.

Why no blog updates? when are the nuptuals going to be? Inquiring minds want to know…

Meanwhile, I was glad to see that Allen wrote well about the issues involved in the new modes of dating, and didn’t sensationalize the blog but simply pointed out its best points without hiding its, er, occasional problematic elements.

I only wish she’d quoted one of our host’s best lines: “Here lies America. She achieved closure…”

Nuptials in May. That’s why I haven’t blogged much lately. Have been preoccupied with the preparations, and with job-hunting. I am planning to write about the Allen article and responses to it soon, though.

There’s an email address in the “about” section of my blog for anyone who wants to contact me. It doesn’t contain my real name but it will come through to me.

She is either very shy or a total ice queen since she doesn’t seem to make eye contact with anyone. I see her around and try to make eye contact but she usually looks away very quickly or just stares down at the ground. Her entourage ranges from total fuglies to decent 8s. She is never the center of attention tho which leads to me to think that she is reserved.

Can you explain this? Is there a chance or should I just move on… I’m really done with brunettes and would like a blond Russian for variety.

My take on your theory. This was an actual incident and the memory has stuck with me for the sheer audacity that I displayed. I couldn’t believe what I had said to her. I was secretly pining for this woman I had only just met a few days before and she only stuck around, I’m sure for my weirdness and intelligent conversation.

But her first SDST was a direct challenge. I didn’t even know what to call it at the time but I knew even then that it had ramifications deeper and more powerful than the simple subtle hook many men think it has.

You are absolutely right, it’s a baited hook for Alpha qualities. She wants to know what kind of guy she’s dealing with and I believe it’s an untrained impulse, an intuition or instinct in most girls today. I think she knew what she was doing but had never really tested her theory before that day. I know I hadn’t, it was pure reflex to meet a challenge from any gender.

I was at this party once when things got completely out of hand. Way too much booze, etc. had gone down and not everybody there was completely sane to begin with. Things got broken, weapons pulled, blood on the walls, fights between old friends, and worse; a lot worse.
The sun came up, by and by. I slowly realized that I had been sleeping under a couple of newspapers and cast-off bits of other peoples clothing. Yet, somehow, I was not feeling the cold. When my head cleared a little more, I realized that I was sharing body head under this low-rent ghetto junkie-bed with a painfully cute 23 year old Avatar of fuckability.
Genes have a way of expressing their own truths. She chose my spot while in a near sleep-walking coma, on the basis of smell, basically. Smelling is the 1st and most primitive cranial nerve.

There are plenty of times when if you are black out drunk then people will just pass out randomly. Completely beyond their control at that point your sensory system would be not working. Ur case would be true if there was a fight and the “stranger” girl clung to you automatically.

Number 1 is best, especially if you go over the top with the validation, so she questions your sincerity, and thus her worthiness. It’s a great neg because you can’t get in trouble for ‘complementing’ her.

So your strategy for How to Win Friends and Influence People is to be passive aggressive?

“Thursday- I just read the HuffPo retort. Writer didn’t even seem to understand the main points. And stuff like this-”

Professor of Journalism: a credentialed idiot

My first reaction to seeing someone point out their credentials at the top of an article is that they are not confident that their writing is strong enough to carry on it’s own.

And when people mention their credentials when it is not relevant to the topic, they come across as extra weak.

Academia is a bit funny. They are impressed with themselves more than warranted. I appreciate scholarship and education, but the fact is you don’t need more than a 120 IQ to get a doctorate, and you don’t need to do much more than parrot existing ideas, especially ones that are fashionable by your peers.

Strong writing needs no credentials. Weak writing needs all the support it can get. The huffpo piece was shapeless diarrhea that nothing could support.

Is it just me, or do others share my opinion that the bulk of holders of doctorate degrees can not think clearly, and are over concerned with credentials?

I’m of the opinion that clear thinking is helped along by education, but not caused by it. A minority of less than 2% of people know how to wield a thought with art and precision.

Degrees are no guarantee of passing a test of fitness. The profs themselves are often unfit, and those that are fit couldn’t hold their students to rigorous standards and still run a profitable school.

The Table is “Mean, range, variance, and standard error of the mean, for 148 Cambridge faculty”

The mean IQ for Social Sciences is 121.8. True autodidactism starts at about 124-125. And this is fucking Cambridge, not Podunk U.

“I’m of the opinion that clear thinking is helped along by education, but not caused by it. A minority of less than 2% of people know how to wield a thought with art and precision.”

It seems that entire fields of study were created to accomodate unclear thinkers, no?

“Degrees are no guarantee of passing a test of fitness. The profs themselves are often unfit, and those that are fit couldn’t hold their students to rigorous standards and still run a profitable school.”

It’s kind of a racket and a bubble. If it were a stock, I’d be shorting sometime soon.

Fellows, I am surprised at you. You hang about here blathering that the HuffPost’s author has a low IQ or is a weak writer, instead of checking out the sources she mentions. I had a look online for the 2004 dating study she mentions, and unless I’m mistaken, it says something quite different from what the good Doctor of Journalism says it does. Now, go for it.

R., thanks for the analysis. Under the circumstances, the one occasion when I smiled & said nothing was the best way to go. With the other woman, “Have you always been this vain?” would have been perfect. I’ll keep that one in mind.

If I may:
Sometimes it is not about validation or so called insecurity when a women “fishes” for a compliment or puts the “feelers” out for where you stand on her looks. Sometimes it’s about simply trying to gauge if the specific guy in front of her likes her looks. Most good looking women have already been validated by other men. I know it goes against being hard core “alpha” but letting a girl know that her specific looks do it for you can often turn her on and also relax her to the point of complete inhibition in bed, if it’s headed that way. Women need to feel wanted to a certain extent to elevate the chemistry.

With option 1, you also have to insinuate that she is in fact fat, by telling her you want her to go to the gym, to be “healthy”, and grabbing whatever chub she may have from time to time and giggling it, to make her feel insecure. This takes time, but always must be done, to keep her feeling lees attractive than she is.

most newspapers and magazines have the standard of putting where the writer of each article works or graduated at the end or beginning of each article

it wasn´t ms. Caryl´s decision to do that, I suppose

I’ve never noticed that.

Are there many other examples in huffpo of the authors scholastic credentials being mentioned? Other than prefixing their name with Dr. or Proffessor? I know when sources are quoted, it’s traditional to also give the context of persons profession or academic standing, but I’ve never noticed that applied to the authors. Struck me as funny, in an academia has it’s head up it’s ass kind of way.

With option 1, you also have to insinuate that she is in fact fat, by telling her you want her to go to the gym, to be “healthy”, and grabbing whatever chub she may have from time to time and giggling it, to make her feel insecure. This takes time, but always must be done, to keep her feeling lees attractive than she is.

Now there’s a strategy I can stand behind and will march alongside brothers who practice that art. Full frontal aggression. None of this pansy-candy-coated-ass passive aggressive am I being a dick or not.

You want the girl to say “I honestly have no idea why I love you – you’re such an asshole”

You don’t want her to say “I love you because you never hurt my feelings”. At least, if you are sane, you’ll never want that, because it’s an insane wish. Won’t happen.

“Results supported predictions and indicated that males preferred the subordinate over the dominant target for affiliation and high-investment items, and females were unaffected by the target’s dominance status.”

Let’s remember that “dominance” in this context is STATUS dominance. The study isn’t looking at alpha/beta behavior, which is what Allen’s article’s about. They’re looking at pics saying “this is your boss — this is your underling.”

Here’s what dingbat says:

“And men don’t reject high achieving women. Research finds that today, men are opting for women who have completed their education, In fact, the more educated a woman is, the more marriageable she is. Women who earn more than their husbands (some 40 percent of married women) have marriages that are just as stable as those in which women earn less.”

Very modern-journalistic! I’ll just ignore the Lewis and Brown evidence that doesn’t support my thesis!

Look, her article’s an incoherent mess. She dismisses out of hand in some places, demolishes a strawman in others, not to mention cherrypicks findings. She has no understanding of the topic as a whole whatsoever.

I’m reminded of Denise Wacko, who mentioned her “credentials” in her posting name. Fucking loony.

The whole notion of “expert in the field” is just so overdone. On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog. Finally! Now we can have some serious discussion. Appealing to authority, where you yourself are the authority? Fucking loony.

The plot thickens. Here’s what *I* had found in a release from the U of Michigan’s news service about the new research:

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a University of Michigan study finds.

The study, published in the current issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, highlights the importance of relational dominance in mate selection and discusses the evolutionary utility of male concerns about mating with dominant females.

“These findings provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women,” said Stephanie Brown, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR).

For the study, supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brown and co-author Brian Lewis from UCLA tested 120 male and 208 female undergraduates by asking them to rate their attraction and desire to affiliate with a man and a woman they were said to know from work.

“Imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer (or John) is your immediate supervisor (or your peer, or your assistant),” study participants were told as they were shown a photo of a male or a female.

After seeing the photo and hearing the description of the person’s role at work in relation to their own, participants were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale (1 is not at all, 9 is very much) to rate the extent to which they would enjoy going to a party with Jennifer or John, exercising with the person, dating the person and marrying the person.

Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.

“Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women increases as the investment in the relationship increases,” Brown said. “This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners.

“Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships—not one-night stands.”

According to Brown, who is affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, the current findings are consistent with earlier research showing that expressions of vulnerability enhance female attractiveness. “Our results also provide further explanation for why males might attend to dominance-linked characteristics of women such as relative age or income, and why adult males typically prefer partners who are younger and make less money.”

Notice that here, all the study seems to be saying is that women were not attracted to subordinate partners, a seemingly unnecessary claim: Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating. [From the news release above.] Which is right, I wonder, the abstract or the news release?

Long strange trip it has been traveling to town, but glad I’m here. First read the Misandry Bubble by the Futurist and had some major scales fall from my eyes, and not suprisingly found my way here. Spent the last few weeks reading through the chronicles, and had my vision clear all the more.

I am a recovering Beta.

For all those haters out there who attack the message, let me offer this; He may not be right (everyone needs to be fact checked) and I do not agree with him on everything, but his theories sure seem to explain a WHOLE of shit in the sexual universe, from both my personal experience and observations. Until someone comes up with a better Unified Theory, it’s the current operation manual for me.

Let me jump in by Fisking a small part of this article from the Huffington Post. HuffPo author Caryl Rivers takes to task a quote from WS author Charlotte Allen:

<>

Rivers does not seem to get the point, or rather, it seems she jumbles them around to confuse the issue.

The beauty as a social construct we all know is laughably false. Anyone still buying that? Rivers does, but she never directly challenges Allen on her claim that women don’t get sexier when they get older.

Instead, she contradicts the idea that beauty does not matter with the experiment where MORE ATTRACTIVE women in the 30’s and 40’s were preferred by men than PLAIN WOMEN in their 20’s.

Excuse me, but HOW did the experimenters determine WHO was more attractive and who was plain for experiment, if “Beauty is a social…construct?”

And how do you refer to a woman with a “face and figure like a barn door” and refer to other woman as the “good-looking” ones and STILL claim that beauty is social construct, unless Rivers, feminist thought I bet she is, is also buying into that construct?

Jeezus, the more I dig into this, the less sense it makes!

If there is one thing that drives me absolutely insane nowadays, it is the rampant spread and acceptance of illogic.

Four words, Ms Rivers: Think More, Type Less.

He may be rough and cruel with his analysis, but it is the perfect antidote for such sloppy yet widely applauded thought. Keep it up.

It does appear to be awkward and misleading. I wonder why? The abstract looks more reliable, and was probably written up by one of the researchers or at least approved by them, while the news release could have been written by anyone. But in any case I can accept the abstract’s contention that a woman is more likely to be indifferent to whether a man is a boss or an underling as a mate, than a man is vis-a-vis a woman, and your suggestion that women’s preferences in such a case have little to do with alpha sexual status. In short, the study is of little use or relevance to the HuffPost author’s point. Pity, that. I think I blew my chance to make a good point at HuffPost by accepting the news release at face value. Oh well. It was probably hopeless anyway.

It s nefarious because if females don’t want male bosses but male bosses want the females that are lower than them then sexual harrassment would be going one way. Yea females never want their male bosses that makes a lot of sense if you were to base it in any type of reality.

Or who has more to gain a male boss who just gets some pussy and a headache and now an employee who isn’t worth a shit or a female who can get the benefit of getting the top dog who can also do a lot for her career even if she later claims sexual harrasment after he promotes her lol

gunslingergregi: it’s just some local UMich girl writing it, not some big media hack.

In my limited personal experience with small time journalism types — they are NOT the sharpest tools in the shed. Yes, they are all HEAVILY indoctrinated true believers, but it’s more than likely they simply don’t understand what they’re writing about (if it has any degree of scientific or technical subtlety) as opposed to deliberately distorting.

“Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women INCREASES as the investment in the relationship increases,” Brown says. “This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners.”

Which contradicts a large chunk of the HP article — and nowhere in sight.

Oh, and scratch my last comment. What she’s saying (“Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.”
) is in context technically correct but it doesn’t spell out women’s preferences, so potentially misleading to a casual reader.

I just had a really good idea for passing these shit tests where the woman is seeking validation or complements.

When you identify a shit test, for example a woman says “I hate this dress, it makes me look fat…” or something stupid like that, find the nearest guy, or even girl, and ask them if they like her dress or if it makes her look fat or whatever relates best to her shit test.

Being that generally people are polite, they’ll compliment or validate her INSTEAD OF YOU!

Instead of GIVING AWAY your power, you’re actually DEMONSTRATING POWER over somebody else, and making her FEEL BETTER about whatever she was concerned about at the same time. Everybody’s satisfied!

Self-deprecating remarks are totally a turn off for me. If she wants to get you, then she won’t degrade herself before you rather tries to show her best side. So women like these are depressed and aren’t wanna be picked up. I don’t wanna hook up with depressed pessismist women. My answer would be to a shit test like this is to ask back like ” then why don’t you do against it?” or “why don’t you change it?”.

The Brown and Lewis study is a pack of lies, half-truths, projection, and feminist distortions.

“men may prefer to marry less accomplished women”

One, this projects women’s mate criteria onto men. As a rule, men don’t select women by their accomplishments. Two, I know of no men who prefer less accomplished women. Rather, their hands are tied because men know, consciously or unconsciously, that female hypergamy means doing otherwise means the relationship will be unstable. Three, I see this as a shaming statement: men shouldn’t do this.

“Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.”

Note the subtle slant and misinformation here. In a study including men and women, how did they fail to generate any data about women when women were 2/3 of the participants?

After finding out women aren’t interested in subordinates, they didn’t bother to find out what women do want. It mentions nothing about women’s preferences for higher-status partners. It wouldn’t be PC to admit that.

“females were unaffected by the target’s dominance status”

That isn’t believable. I only have to watch what women actually do, which is date their bosses, not their underlings.